Transhumanism and you

[Armadox]

What is even the point of uploading your brain to a computer?

Teaching the future with the greatest minds of the past (er, their past, so our future still). Think about it, how often does someone say " I really wish I could have met 'x'"? The ability to learn from artists, debate philosophy with those who refine it, learn from history by asking it personally. You know how much I'd pay to be able to debate art with Stan Lee if he croaks before I had a chance to meet him?
Family who can talk to their ancestors, learning what happened during their lives. It'd be endlessly useful.

SNIP

But it is the same, presuming the technology is sufficient, it physically will be the exact same person. If the program that simulates your brain is made correctly it will be the exact same person as you. Not a clone, not a copy, you. The same person whose body died. Like I said, as long as you bridge the gap, so that your memory/thoughts maintain the narrative you will be the same person.

Of course it's not.

No matter how good a copy is, it's still a copy.

You can't transfer your consciousness, all you could do is replicate it.

I disagree. Do you realize that every particle that makes up your body right now is different from the particles it was a few years ago. Maybe even a few months ago. And yet you are still...you. If the entire composition of your body can be changed over time and yet you still survive then why should it be any different when it's digital or silicon?

The key thing is the structure. When all the particles are replaced in your body the thing that is preserved is structurally & functionally the same as before. A digital version of your mind just has to be structurally and functionally identical and so long as that criteria is met: It's you.

This debate is the same one they have for the teleporters in Star Trek. Using a computer to make an identical map of your body while breaking it into it's composite atoms, then transporting the mass somewhere else, or using vats of matter to rebuild you. Is what comes out the other side the same person as what went in? No.

The same way that you of this second isn't the same you of last second, or the same you of two days ago. As you gain new stimuli, forming new memories and the like, you change. Conceptually, you are nothing more then your experiences as interpreted by your personality. If I made an identical replica of you, the second it had a thought you did not, it's officially someone else. If I was to replace my body with machinery, it'd be someone who knows everything I did, plus what it's like to go through Dr. Robotnik's Roboticizer.

And that isn't a bad thing. For all you'll ever know, it's the same person, and for the world it'll be a success because what will remain will talk like you, think like you, and know what you knew. The only way to download your consciousness into a machine would be to lock out all new stimuli, putting you in a loop that never changes, never learns more.

When I was a child, I had no soft spot. When they chose to do surgery at birth to correct it, they nicked something during surgery that disabled my skin's ability to feel pain. Over the years I've had an amazing time surviving various accidents and the like, and have metal grafted to two ribs and right leg. From a simple standpoint of structure, these would be no different then the hard point attachments needed to graft in place new technology. I am partly metal, am I human?

When technology finally masters splicing nerve impulses to sensors that would allow me to wear a new skin of circuitry and feel pain again, would I still be me? I don't think so, but I don't think it'll matter.

I personally am all for transhumanism. The ability to take what we are, and use technology to drastically alter ourselves to adapt would start out paltry, sure. We'd start with prosthetic alterations, followed by wetware, then biological machinery, and finally we'd be free to do everything. Live on other planets, breath water, connect ourselves to the overmind, be cloud computing..

I did a 20 minute presentation in Grade 12 about Transhumanism, and a paper in University on it so I know a little of the ins and outs of the concept. People seem to be forgetting here that Transhumanism is not a new concept, in fact, it's a concept about as old as it gets. As Transhumanism is simply the enhancing of the human condition through means of technology, one trip down to Wikipedia will remind you that Transhumanist themes are present even in Gilgamesh and his journey for the Fountain of Youth.

As for what's cool about it, I can't wait to see a super-intelligence and the Singularity. Like one of those Daleks that can't wait to be exterminated by the better model, I can't wait to see AI life start evolving into a flawless neo-humaity with perfect order and harmony, and absolute reason and rationality.

No, dear god no. When you figure yourself perfect, when there is no more to learn or do or see. When you've killed art and creativity for ration and order you kill what actually makes us human. That's not transhumanism at all, it's trans-speciesism, the end of humanity for what comes next. And whatever that is, will stagnate and rust and die as it'd be all there is left to do. No, I'd always toss in the mad to gum up the works a bit. There must always be the thirst for what comes next, otherwise what's the point to it all?

 

[Flatfrog]

Some people have predicted that this Transhumanism process can happen as soon as the year 2040.

And don't forget those who argue it's already happened - I think David Deutsch was the first one to seriously propose it. His argument is that given that we almost certainly *will* be able to create a simulated universe eventually, and all conscious beings probably would develop the same kind of technology, the balance of probability is that we're probably in a computer-generated universe right now.

If it's true, then that would explain quantum mechanics - the Planck Length would basically be the level of resolution of the simulation.

 

[Flatfrog]

This debate is the same one they have for the teleporters in Star Trek. Using a computer to make an identical map of your body while breaking it into it's composite atoms, then transporting the mass somewhere else, or using vats of matter to rebuild you. Is what comes out the other side the same person as what went in? No.

The same way that you of this second isn't the same you of last second, or the same you of two days ago. As you gain new stimuli, forming new memories and the like, you change.

Well, that's the same argument as the idea that time doesn't exist, all there is is a 4-dimensional space time which just happens to have a causal relationship in one direction. It always struck me as a fairly empty argument. Our memory of a continuous conscious experience *is* a continuous conscious experience, so if something has exactly my experiences and my brain structure, then it's me. And if a teleporter malfunction makes two of me, then no big deal - they'll both be equally me for a microsecond, then they'll become distinct beings with separate experiences.

 

[Esotera]

Not entirely sure about this. Ultimately things like medical care, corrective surgery and improved diet don't really constitute transhumanism in my view, because they don't really bring about a change in our basic physiology and more importantly, thought processes.
To take an example, the common fox lives for about 4-5 years, whereas in captivity they can live to 14. Would we call such foxes trans-vulpene? I wouldn't, because it's still a fox - indistinguishable in intelligence, instinct or physiology.
Whereas most transhumans in sci-fi I've read have entirely alien abilities and outlooks; in 2001 we get the starchild, in Childhood's End they become positively inhuman, in Ilium they ascend because they get bored of reality, in Night's Dawn they become a kind of hive mind and benefit from the perspective that offers.
Since this is a gaming website; Prophet in Crysis could be said to be transhuman because he's almost entirely beyond human emotion, predicts future events and seamlessly melds with computers by the time of Crysis 3.
Masterchief isn't though, because he's basically a fast human in a suit.

To take your example, we'd appear pretty godly to an ancient greek, but we have essentially the same physical abilities, and ultimately think in a very similar way. Yes, we can communicate all over the world in an instant, but the messages we send, whether bitching about work, flirting, making jokes, whatever; if appropriately translated, would make just as much sense to Mr Hypaspist as to us.
As a sidenote, I saw an Exhibition on Pompei the other day, and it's striking just how much we haven't changed in spite of literally a quarter of recorded history having passed since then. There are probably more significant cultural differences between me and a Saudi guy who's was born the same year as me, than with a guy who died 2000 years ago.

I do agree the main thrust of your post though - that transhumanism is somewhat amorphous, depends on perspective, and is difficult to do. I'm not sure where I'd explicitly draw the line. I guess that could be why they call it transhumanism though!

It depends what you're discussing - if you were talking about quantum mechanics with someone, then your ancient greek would require a lot of time to catch up with the necessary concepts, whereas if you do science to A-level in the UK you're likely to touch upon the basics, and you'll almost certainly encounter it at degree level (providing you do a science). I guess an implied part of transhumanism is advanced knowledge, although this doesn't really define the concept, and relies on your point in history.

Maybe humans are just too adaptable for transhumanism to actually occur or be recognised as an official thing - we are notoriously good at adapting to new environments & learning new strategies. Therefore I would probably say 'soft' transhumanism would be being able to use whatever technology is available in the period in which you are born, and 'hard' transhumanism is changing yourself enough so that your behaviour has major benefits over what is currently available. From our point of reference that could be stuff like living for hundreds of years, being able to communicate telepathically, and a much higher level of intelligence/persistence. I would love all those abilities but am also glad that I wasn't born 100 years ago...I'm not sure how much sense this makes or whether it's just a ramble.

 

[Silvanus]

I imagine that curiosity would eventually convince me to go transhuman if the option was there.


Dayum, the aliens in 2001: Space Odyssey even had their consciousnesses downloaded into spacecraft.

 

[Nickolai77]

Will transhumanism give people the ability to use basic punctuation in their posts? If so i'm all up for it.

Transhumanism is more than being technologically able to upload consciousness into machines. In its entirety, it's all about enhancing our human abilities with the aid of technology to the point that we're "no longer" human- and hence transhuman. This is why i have problems with transhumanism itself- how do you define exactly when you're no longer human because of technology? There's also something rather narcissistic about the whole idea- there's an implication that transhumans are "better" or have more worth than ordinary humans and strikes me as being rather arrogant.

If it didn't make you better than a normal human what would be the point?

Well would you say a physically able person has more moral worth than a disabled one? Does an athlete have moral value than a run off the mill office worker?

Will transhumanism give people the ability to use basic punctuation in their posts? If so i'm all up for it.

Transhumanism is more than being technologically able to upload consciousness into machines. In its entirety, it's all about enhancing our human abilities with the aid of technology to the point that we're "no longer" human- and hence transhuman. This is why i have problems with transhumanism itself- how do you define exactly when you're no longer human because of technology? There's also something rather narcissistic about the whole idea- there's an implication that transhumans are "better" or have more worth than ordinary humans and strikes me as being rather arrogant.

The philosophical argument here is what defines a human? How many body parts can you hack off before your definition changes? Is a feotus a human? or a brain dead man? Or a deformed baby? If humanity is defined by resembling a human Then humanity is simply the "ability" to be a human.

Lets take that another step. If deficiency doesn't make me less human then what about add ons? If i start off with a human core and upload into a cybernetic conciousness or change my base genetics to an ethereal form do I lose my humanity status? why? It reminds me of the Theseus paradox

I do not think arrogance is humanities problem. It's loneliness and boredom. The morbid idea that we might be alone in this vast and cold, indifferent universe. That our time will come and go and no one (if aliens exist) will even know we were here. The old gods we created (whom are simply personifications of mans fears and aspirations) are dead (I apologize if you're religious, I speak existentially); the next thing its to take our fates into our own hands and control our mortality and maybe even create life of our own.

I think "humanity" is all tied up in the mind. You could have a human body which biologically works in every way but if it doesn't have a brain then it can't really be a person and therefore shouldn't be considered to have human rights. (This may raise some questions concerning the moral status of brain-dead patents- my stance with that is that such people have the potential to regain consciousness then they should be considered human) You could put a human brain in a jar and give it a wholly robotic body and i'd still consider it a human. I don't like the term transhuman however because of the implications it raises suggesting that a cyborg human has more "moral worth" than a wholly biological human.

The boundaries between biological and the technological have been blurred for eons. Could the spear or the sword be considered a technological enhancement for the human arm? Humans have been making glasses since the middle ages to correct eye-sight, and artificial limbs since forever. (I remember reading something about a Roman centurion who had his arm amputated and replaced with an iron limb which he used in battle like some sort of space marine power-fist and gained quite a reputation from it) The only thing is we're getting better and better at making these technological "enhancements" however i don't think these enhancements are making us any more or less human.

I don't know where you're from because your profile doesn't say, but the point is i'm communicating with someone in real-time who could live thousands of miles away on a different continent. By medieval standards that is superhuman but i don't think that makes me any more or less human than my medieval ancestors.

 

[FalloutJack]

The real world is moving at an incredible pace towards what I believe will be similar to that of the Ghost in the Shell world. Cyberization technologies and implantation into the brain is already happening. We have other incredible technologies such as nanotechnology and DNA-based information storage, to which the application of one into the other could make wonders, theoretically. We can clone human organs as easily as we can make cloned kittens and sheep. Eventually, the ability to replace large chunks of the body will be possible and eventually the full-body prosthetic may be possible. I'm almost certain that it will happen in my lifetime, and it will be awesome to behold.

 

[The Event]

I disagree. Do you realise that every particle that makes up your body right now is different from the particles it was a few years ago. Maybe even a few months ago. And yet you are still...you. If the entire composition of your body can be changed over time and yet you still survive then why should it be any different when it's digital or silicon?

The key thing is the structure. When all the particles are replaced in your body the thing that is preserved is structurally & functionally the same as before. A digital version of your mind just has to be structurally and functionally identical and so long as that criteria is met: It's you.

Imagine someone invents a teleporter. You step into Booth A and then a few seconds later you step out of Booth B.
Seems great doesn't it, instant travel.
Would you use it?

Before making your first trip in it you discover that all is not quite as it seems. The teleporter isn't really a teleporter. It doesn't disassamble you and then reassemble you at the destination after all. What it actually does is Booth A scans you and then sends data to Booth B which creates a perfect duplicate of you. Booth A then destroys the original.
To the outside world it appears you've teleported as "You" have just stepped out of Booth B. The You that came out of Booth B is structurally and functionally identical to the one that stepped into Booth A.
Would you still use it?

Now the booths develop a fault. When Booth B created the copy at the destination, Booth A failed to delete you. There are now two of you. The teleporter chief says that one of you will have to be destroyed (to keep the system balanced or something). Would you be happy to be the one destroyed in the knowledge that the you at Booth B is just the same as you?

 

[Armadox]

Now the booths develop a fault. When Booth B created the copy at the destination, Booth A failed to delete you. There are now two of you. The teleporter chief says that one of you will have to be destroyed (to keep the system balanced or something). Would you be happy to be the one destroyed in the knowledge that the you at Booth B is just the same as you?

Technically speaking, the booth operator should keep the person in Booth A there telling them that there was an error in the booth and that he didn't jump at all. They should delete the one in Booth B for being a replica, and send the person in Booth A back through. Not only would it solve the issue, but also keep any discrepancies from happening without causing alarm. This way the system would never seem broken, and no one would worry about it. You'd use it thinking it was fool proof.

 

[OneCatch]

Not entirely sure about this. Ultimately things like medical care, corrective surgery and improved diet don't really constitute transhumanism in my view, because they don't really bring about a change in our basic physiology and more importantly, thought processes.
To take an example, the common fox lives for about 4-5 years, whereas in captivity they can live to 14. Would we call such foxes trans-vulpene? I wouldn't, because it's still a fox - indistinguishable in intelligence, instinct or physiology.
Whereas most transhumans in sci-fi I've read have entirely alien abilities and outlooks; in 2001 we get the starchild, in Childhood's End they become positively inhuman, in Ilium they ascend because they get bored of reality, in Night's Dawn they become a kind of hive mind and benefit from the perspective that offers.
Since this is a gaming website; Prophet in Crysis could be said to be transhuman because he's almost entirely beyond human emotion, predicts future events and seamlessly melds with computers by the time of Crysis 3.
Masterchief isn't though, because he's basically a fast human in a suit.

To take your example, we'd appear pretty godly to an ancient greek, but we have essentially the same physical abilities, and ultimately think in a very similar way. Yes, we can communicate all over the world in an instant, but the messages we send, whether bitching about work, flirting, making jokes, whatever; if appropriately translated, would make just as much sense to Mr Hypaspist as to us.
As a sidenote, I saw an Exhibition on Pompei the other day, and it's striking just how much we haven't changed in spite of literally a quarter of recorded history having passed since then. There are probably more significant cultural differences between me and a Saudi guy who's was born the same year as me, than with a guy who died 2000 years ago.

I do agree the main thrust of your post though - that transhumanism is somewhat amorphous, depends on perspective, and is difficult to do. I'm not sure where I'd explicitly draw the line. I guess that could be why they call it transhumanism though!

It depends what you're discussing - if you were talking about quantum mechanics with someone, then your ancient greek would require a lot of time to catch up with the necessary concepts, whereas if you do science to A-level in the UK you're likely to touch upon the basics, and you'll almost certainly encounter it at degree level (providing you do a science). I guess an implied part of transhumanism is advanced knowledge, although this doesn't really define the concept, and relies on your point in history.

Maybe humans are just too adaptable for transhumanism to actually occur or be recognised as an official thing - we are notoriously good at adapting to new environments & learning new strategies. Therefore I would probably say 'soft' transhumanism would be being able to use whatever technology is available in the period in which you are born, and 'hard' transhumanism is changing yourself enough so that your behaviour has major benefits over what is currently available. From our point of reference that could be stuff like living for hundreds of years, being able to communicate telepathically, and a much higher level of intelligence/persistence. I would love all those abilities but am also glad that I wasn't born 100 years ago...I'm not sure how much sense this makes or whether it's just a ramble.

Yeah, explaining quantum mechanics to a greek would be pretty difficult, but it would also be pretty difficult to explain it to a modern person who isn't educated to an affluent standard (I'm using the term affluent in lieu of 'First World' or 'Western' because it's more precise than either). But basic tenants of cause and effect and logic apply across all cultures, similarly emotions and instincts are pretty universal.

I stress that this is entirely my take on it, but I'd say that transhumanism isn't so much the ability to have advanced knowledge, but instead to be able to process and store knowledge in a manner beyond current humans, in the same way that our thought process is entirely beyond that of, say, earlier hominid species.

A transhuman, to my mind, wouldn't just be able to learn things faster, or parallel process, or 'think outside the box' to an extreme degree (by our standards). After all we have geniuses (albeit usually limited to one particular field) who can do that anyway.
In a funny kind of way, I think if we could imagine or follow the thought process of a transhuman, then they by definition aren't transhuman.

I do however like your idea of soft and hard transhumanism[footnote]Please let's not compare to the alleged theory of micro and macro evolution though[/footnote]. Strikes me as a good way to 'fill the gaps' so to speak, and it means I don't have to keep bugging myself with where I draw the line.
I've been doing thought experiments as precisely where and which suit iteration in Crysis causes transhumanism as per my definition, but sod it, Nomad+Suit1.0 is soft transhuman, Prophet+Suit2.0 is true transhuman. Problem solved!

 

[Korolev]

1. I believe that if it is possible, we'll do it. Humanity is like that. Even if you ban it in one country, it'll be done in another. If it offers an advantage, it will be done by someone looking to have that advantage.

2. I don't believe it will ever give us "Immortality". At best, it will extend our lifespan by quite a bit.

3. 2040's a bit optimistic. I fully expect that by 2040 we'll have good artificial limbs, but immortality and super-powers? I doubt it. That seems more likely in 2080 or 2100. Assuming, of course, we haven't destroyed ourselves as a species by that point.

 

[Dr. Cakey]

And as to how your body replaces itself every few years. New cells etc. There is never a point where your consciousness is transferred. You lose and replace cells, but nothing is transferred.

I know you could get into a very philosophical debate about what actually makes us who we are. Are we just the sum of our parts or is there something unique that makes us, us.

But let's be blunt. You can't take what you are and put it in a new shell. You can copy it as precisely as you want. But it isn't the original.

Suppose instead of being downloaded to some solid state drive, your brain was replaced, cell-by-cell and neuron by neuron, with identical nano-science-thingies. Would we then have dodged the 'death-of-self' conundrum? And if so, it really was 'dodging'. Is the 'self' something you can seamlessly maintain via a technicality?

And really the important part for actually continuing to live is whether that same you is still sensing the world around them. It's no comfort to me if my senses end and a new body that is exactly like me continues to sense.

I feel like you ought to ask your duplicate what he thinks, because he might disagree with you.

Technically speaking, the booth operator should keep the person in Booth A there telling them that there was an error in the booth and that he didn't jump at all. They should delete the one in Booth B for being a replica, and send the person in Booth A back through. Not only would it solve the issue, but also keep any discrepancies from happening without causing alarm. This way the system would never seem broken, and no one would worry about it. You'd use it thinking it was fool proof.

Better not tell the dude in Booth B, 'cuz he'd be pissed.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Well since I believe in souls, I think it's all simply rather silly and a moot point at that.

 

[ultrachicken]

Frankly, I don't understand why making a computer copy of someone's brain is considered "uploading" them, or somehow transcending mortality. A copy of someone that lives longer than the original does not provide the original immortality.

But otherwise, I'm already pro-transhumanism, as I imagine most people are, regardless of whether or not they know it.

 

[iblis666]

And as to how your body replaces itself every few years. New cells etc. There is never a point where your consciousness is transferred. You lose and replace cells, but nothing is transferred.

I know you could get into a very philosophical debate about what actually makes us who we are. Are we just the sum of our parts or is there something unique that makes us, us.

But let's be blunt. You can't take what you are and put it in a new shell. You can copy it as precisely as you want. But it isn't the original.

Suppose instead of being downloaded to some solid state drive, your brain was replaced, cell-by-cell and neuron by neuron, with identical nano-science-thingies. Would we then have dodged the 'death-of-self' conundrum? And if so, it really was 'dodging'. Is the 'self' something you can seamlessly maintain via a technicality?

And really the important part for actually continuing to live is whether that same you is still sensing the world around them. It's no comfort to me if my senses end and a new body that is exactly like me continues to sense.

I feel like you ought to ask your duplicate what he thinks, because he might disagree with you.

Technically speaking, the booth operator should keep the person in Booth A there telling them that there was an error in the booth and that he didn't jump at all. They should delete the one in Booth B for being a replica, and send the person in Booth A back through. Not only would it solve the issue, but also keep any discrepancies from happening without causing alarm. This way the system would never seem broken, and no one would worry about it. You'd use it thinking it was fool proof.

Better not tell the dude in Booth B, 'cuz he'd be pissed.

I think if done slowly enough nano tech could replace the brain without causing death of self, but i prefer an alternative in which the nanotech acts in parallel to the flesh and blood brain and preferably the entire body maintaining and repairing it as well as acting as storage and alternative communication increasing reaction time.

 

[TehCookie]

The philosophical argument here is what defines a human? How many body parts can you hack off before your definition changes? Is a feotus a human? or a brain dead man? Or a deformed baby? If humanity is defined by resembling a human Then humanity is simply the "ability" to be a human.

Lets take that another step. If deficiency doesn't make me less human then what about add ons? If i start off with a human core and upload into a cybernetic conciousness or change my base genetics to an ethereal form do I lose my humanity status? why? It reminds me of the Theseus paradox

I do not think arrogance is humanities problem. It's loneliness and boredom. The morbid idea that we might be alone in this vast and cold, indifferent universe. That our time will come and go and no one (if aliens exist) will even know we were here. The old gods we created (whom are simply personifications of mans fears and aspirations) are dead (I apologize if you're religious, I speak existentially); the next thing its to take our fates into our own hands and control our mortality and maybe even create life of our own.

Isn't there a taxonomy definition to what is human along with all other animals? If you cut off an arm, you have a human arm and a human missing an arm. Being brain dead or unborn does not affect your species. If you change your base genetics into something else that could affect your species. I know one of the requirements for being the same species is to be able to produce fertile offspring, so if you can't do that in a computer or ethereal form you are no long a homo sapien.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well the reality of the situation is we have been doing it for years already and it's not actually as outlandish as you think.
Same old story as with "future tech that didn't happen", but actually there are plenty of flying cars, jetpacks, robots, bionic implants, self driving cars, quantum computers, laser guns, rail guns, nanobots, ... the only difference is these things are beholden to the real world while we expect fairy dust magic.

And in case it still doesn't sink in modern medicine is our augmentation program, be it just chemical, surgical, organ aids, hearing aids, visual aids, motor aids / robotic prosthetics, bone enhancers, genetic regrowth, and plenty more are part of regular medical procedure(as long as someone pays enough) but we don't bat an eyelid at that.
Then people imagine shoving a gun or sword into their forearm will the weapons that much cooler, it's the same damn thing you just have a horrifically high chance of self poisoning and one hell of hard time explaining yourself at the airport.

 

[Thaluikhain]

But it is the same, presuming the technology is sufficient, it physically will be the exact same person. If the program that simulates your brain is made correctly it will be the exact same person as you. Not a clone, not a copy, you. The same person whose body died. Like I said, as long as you bridge the gap, so that your memory/thoughts maintain the narrative you will be the same person.

Er, how is it not a copy? If I make an exact duplicate of you, you are still you, there's just another copy of you running around.

Likewise, if I said I was going to smack you or your copy in the face, which would you rather it be? One i going to hurt you, the other is going to hurt your copy.

 

[Dimitriov]

It's a terrible idea. People are supposed to die. That's not a side effect of being human: it's a feature.



Think how whiny and stupid people are already... now imagine them being immortal and never having had to work for ANYTHING.


I don't know how it can be stopped, but it's a terrible idea.

 

[Madman123456]

I think this Discussion is rather moot. When we come across things we may want to discuss most of the circumstances would be rather different.
At the moment, we prolong live, replace body parts and can nudge the body's own healing in the right direction.
Will it ever come to the feared two class system with people who can afford to augment themselves and "Normals"? We don't know that and personally i doubt it. We have many Jobs today that don't require you to be stronger and faster, you need patience and intelligence. Actually, i worked very few jobs that really required me to be strong.

Being more intelligent, maybe creative in finding solutions to problems is more important and indeed was more important in the quarry i worked in; i'm rather strong but if i can find something to use as a lever, something else to us as a fulcrum i can move this super heavy boulder around better then all the strength augmented people ever depicted in SciFi.

When we get around to cheaply and accurately play around with our brains to make them faster and more creative there will be another "Problem", unemployment.

Since the industrial revolution we made more and more machines to do more work with fewer people.
Today, we have politicians trying to placate big companies to create jobs. Has been that way since i dunno, 50 years?
Well, if we get more efficient in producing more goods and services with even less people and maybe eventually get tired of chasing after cheap consumer electronics, clothes and other stuff because they break down or aren't up to date anymore we will have the problem that we may have enough jobs for about half the able population.


There have been some people thinking what to do when that happens; some think the state should pay out something like the unemployement benefits to everyone. Very little bureaucracy no one having to determine if you get less or more, pretty much everyone gets the same pile of cash.
If you want to sit around at home all day you could do that; if you want to do something and earn some additional money, you can do that as well.
Maybe Jobs might have to get shorter hours and we will have to restructure the whole social insurance structure so that you're insured no matter where you are when you fall and break your leg or something.

All in all, pretty huge changes would have to be ahead of us with big risks for our economy.

If we manage that, this trans-humanism discussion might go into another direction entirely.
Maybe we would create a new "lower class" of un-augmentet people who can't find jobs because the augments get them all and maybe that wont be much of a problem because everyone gets enough money from the state to support themselves.

Maybe the un-augmentet can't afford the newest smartphone or occular implant social media connectivity thingy or whatever the latest craze will be but they'll be fine.


Also, i very much doubt that *all* the jobs will be held by augmented people. I don't need implants to watch a monitor and call the police when i see someone breaking in somewhere, i don't think i need one to flip burgers or do any other of the "low paying" jobs which would then provide me with a little boost to the money i'd get from the state.


When we get somewhere where just about everyone has some new stuff in their bodies we may as well be in a scifi future we can not possibly grasp as of now.